dcsimg

Verizon Claims 冯格's Appeal Isn't So Obvious

电信巨人说,最高法院最近关于显而易见性的裁决不应成为上诉法院的一个因素。

 By 罗伊·马克
第页  |  返回第1页

Verizon today urged a federal 上诉s court to reject 冯格's contention that a recent Supreme Court decision on obviousness justifies the reversal of a $58 million infringement judgment against the Internet telephony company.

The nation's second-largest telephone company also asked the 上诉s court to reinstate a permanent injunction against 冯格 using any of Verizon's infringed technology, a decision that could force the Holmdel, N.J.-based 冯格 out of business.

In 上诉ing the March 8 decision in Verizon's favor, 冯格 wrote in its 上诉 最高法院4月30日的裁决 韩国铁路诉Teleflex 向上诉法院提供使Verizon专利无效的合法火力和指导。

在这种情况下,大法官 统治 the federal 上诉s court is "too rigidly" applying the standard of deciding whether a claimed invention is obvious to those "skilled in the art." The Supreme Court decision came a little more than a month after Verizon won its infringement case against 冯格.

"韩国铁路 不给[Vonage] a second bite at the apple," Verizon wrote in its 上诉s brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "冯格 does not dispute that it failed to preserve its obviousness arguments at trial…它的失败使该法院无法作出明显的判决。”

Verizon的专利于1997年提交,涵盖了将Internet呼叫转移到传统电话系统时域名和IP地址到电话号码的转换。 冯格声称,该解决方案对本领域技术人员是显而易见的,美国专利商标局应该永远不会向Verizon授予专利。

"冯格…未能反对–实际上它提议– the jury instructions on obviousness that it now challenges," Verizon wrote in its brief. "冯格 is simply wrong in asserting 韩国铁路 introduced a 'functional' approach that repudiated the obviousness decisions of this court available to 冯格 at trial."

Verizon进一步指出,最高法院同意审理 韩国铁路诉Teleflex in June of 2006, approximately the same time Verizon sued 冯格 for infringement. By the time the Verizon-Vonage trial began, the 韩国铁路 该案已得到充分的通报。

"韩国铁路 could not reasonably blind-sided 冯格," Verizon wrote. "The highly publicized debate about possible adjustments to obviousness doctrine was open for all to see. Yet 冯格 never suggested to the district court (or to Verizon) that it believed 韩国铁路 与本案有任何关系或需要与陪审团指示不同的陪审团指示。”

Verizon also argued in its brief the permanent injunction barring 冯格 from signing up new customers should be enforced the 上诉s court. After the jury trial, 冯格 提起 紧急禁制令,上诉法院已批准。

As the June 25 oral arguments approach, 冯格 is paying Verizon a 5.5 percent royalty fee until an 上诉s decision is reached.

Verizon写道:“在没有禁令救济的情况下,Verizon将遭受巨大的困难-流失的客户数量不断增加,现有和未来产品和服务的销售损失以及利润率下降-不能通过5.5%的专利使用费来弥补。” “相比之下,Vonage唯一确定的困难是其侵权的VoIP系统有可能退役。”

In the brief, Verizon claims 冯格 has already acquired nearly 600,000 Verizon landline customers. The loss, Verizon said, has resulted of more than $300 million in revenue.

“此外,无需付费即可使用Verizon的专利技术–而不是投资于研发– 冯格 has been able to undercut Verizon's prices, reducing demand for Verizon's own products," the brief states.

本文最初于2007年5月24日发布
通过网络更新新闻获取最新消息